How House Democrats Plan To Use Local Power To Stop Gun Violence – And How To Do It Better

By Zack Beauchamp on Feb 8, 2013 at 5:30 pm

On Thursday afternoon, the House Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force released a framework document laying out fifteen proposals for gun violence prevention legislation. It’s a good document, reaching beyond the mainstay proposals like an assault weapon bans to less heralded, but equally important issues like restrictions on the federal government’s ability to help state and local police track local guns. But the most unique proposals in the framework are also some of the ones most in need of improvement: its recommendations for supporting local efforts against gun violence.

Other recent gun violence proposals (like those from President Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]) have focused primarily on increased direct federal legislation. The Task Force proposal also contains significant federal proposals, but amps up the focus on how the federal government can support innovative state and local initiatives to reduce gun violence. It’s a smart approach — NRA-sponsored legislation limits both local ability to regulate guns and efforts to research their effects, but what evidence we have suggests state and local efforts really can make a dent in gun violence. A study of 54 cities, for example, found that ones with tighter and better enforced gun laws substantially reduced the diversion of guns to criminals.

The Task Force’s approach to local enforcement involves highlighting smart local initiatives and supporting them. For example:

1. Comprehensive, public health youth gun violence initiatives. The Task Force rejects “tough on crime” approaches to youth violence that involve the mass incarceration of kids in favor of “comprehensive, evidence-based prevention and intervention programs directed toward at-risk youth” created by “representatives from local law enforcement, schools, court services, social services, health and mental health services, businesses, and other community organizations.” This appears to be a reference to the “public health” gun violence reduction approach enacted in, among other places, Boston and Minneapolis, which has saved hundreds of lives that might have been claimed by gunfire.

2. Criminal firearm disposal. “Over time, gun owners may lose their eligibility to possess a weapon under state or federal law, often because of criminal activity or mental health issues. Innovative programs designed to facilitate the disposal of firearms held by prohibited persons can prevent gun violence,” the Task Force notes. It goes on to suggest that “the federal government should encourage states to create and utilize programs that allow local law enforcement to assist gun owners who do not have the legal capacity to own them, in the sale or transfer of their illegal firearms.”

3. Community-level gun reduction. The Task Force recommends that “Congress should take measures to encourage state and local governments to use federal funds” to support “various strategies to better engage local communities in removing illegal or unused guns from their neighborhoods, such as illegal gun tip hotlines and voluntary gun buyback programs administered by municipalities or local law enforcement.” This sort of clarity (it even goes on to name specific federal funds that could be used for this purpose) could improve the Task Force’s other suggestions for local law enforcement.

Unfortunately, not all of these proposals for improved local gun action are accompanied by proposals for how the federal government can actually accomplish those ends ends. While the second of the above suggestions does, neither the first nor the third clarifies how, exactly, it plans to use federal law to encourage states, cities, and counties to adopt the outlined approach. Expressing support in the abstract is nice, but absent some kind of federal program providing financial or some other sort of assistance to locales, it’s won’t do very much.

Lack of concrete action for its local support plans isn’t the only problem in the recommendations — for example, its section on “increased prosecutions of persons who violate federal firearms law” focuses more on gun purchasers rather than the real problem, crooked gun dealers willing to sell to criminals. But overall, the proposals are excellent steps in the right direction.

()

Economy

Kansas Governor’s Tax Plan Will Cost Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars, Despite Raising Taxes On The Poor

By Pat Garofalo on Feb 8, 2013 at 5:15 pm

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R), like Republican governors all across the country, aims to implement a regressive tax plan that involves cutting income taxes for the rich while, in his case, maintaining a sales tax hike that primarily hurts the poor. The sales tax increase was supposed to be temporary when it was adopted in 2010, but Brownback now wants to make permanent.

Sales taxes disproportionately impact the poor, who are more likely to spend all or most of their income. According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Brownback’s plan will raise taxes on the poorest Kansans, but still lose hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue due to huge tax cuts for the rich:

– The poorest 20 percent of Kansas taxpayers would pay 0.2 percent more of their income in taxes each year, or an average increase of $22.

– The middle 20 percent of Kansas taxpayers would pay 0.2 percent less of their income in taxes each year, or an average cut of $104.

– Upper-income families, by contrast, reap the greatest benefit with the richest one percent of Kansans, those with an average income of over a million dollars, saving an average of $6,528 a year.

The plan would cost the state $340 million in revenue, despite hiking taxes the poor. And Kansas already has a regressive tax system, with the poorest residents paying a rate more than twice as high as the richest 1 percent.

()

Alyssa

‘The Invisible War’ And How Movies Can Change Policy

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Feb 8, 2013 at 5:04 pm

I’ve been writing about The Invisible War, Kirby Dick’s documentary about the sexual assault epidemic in the military, since I saw it at Sundance last year. And now that it’s been nominated for an Academy Award, Dick and I sat down to discuss the movie’s impact, which Dick said had been a surprise:

Even before Hagel’s promise, The Invisible War was getting traction within the military itself, where it’s become a training tool and an agent of cultural change. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh screened The Invisible War for a meeting of wing commanders in November. And the rank and file are seeing the movie as well. Dick says that a distributor he works with who sells movies to the military and other institutions estimates that 235,000 service members—or nearly 10 percent of the 2.9 million members of the active and reserve armed forces—saw The Invisible War in 2012.

“The military itself is using the film for sexual-assault training, in part because, of course, they have no tools,” Dick said. “Eighty-five percent of those [viewers] are men. I think men seeing this is the real game changer, too. I think the film, not only on a policy level but on a cultural level, [is changing] the military. What people would joke about, you see this film and you don’t joke about it anymore.”

For all Dick is shocked by the failures of legislators and the military to act sooner, and by the Washington press corps for failing to investigate sexual assaults at Marine Barracks Washington—“There are documents, there is a lot of stuff there,” he said—he remains hopeful that the military can change, and that the rest of society can as well.

“The military’s done this before with racism. They could do it with this issue. And they could actually become a leader on the issue of sexual assault for the entire society,” he said. “There’s such divisiveness within this country, and especially around the military. There are a lot of issues with the military. But I think it’s a wonderful thought to think that civilians in society will look to the military as having been a leader in helping to reduce sexual assault across the country.”

It’s true that it’s easier—and probably better—for this to happen with documentaries than with feature films, television shows, or novels. But The Invisible War is one of the reasons I write about popular culture. You need narratives to push policy ideas forward. You need characters, be they human or fictional, to embody the impact of policies, or the lack thereof. And sometimes, people who have been deaf to the stories told by real people in their lives can hear those stories more clearly from the remove of a movie screen.

()

Security

What To Be Concerned About As Congress Mulls Targeted Killing Courts

By Zack Beauchamp on Feb 8, 2013 at 5:00 pm

I am the law?

Should the United States have courts that authorize the targeted killing of Americans? At yesterday’s hearing, Sen. Angus King (I-ME) suggested so yesterday, worrying that the President being “the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is very contrary to laws and traditions of this country.” A court that would approve warrants to kill Americans, King argued, “would be some check on the activities of the executive.” CIA Director Nominee John Brennan said King’s idea was “certainly worthy of discussion,” and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) suggested she and other lawmakers “may explore setting up a special court system to regulate strikes.” New York Times columnist David Brooks made a similar suggestion in his column today, arguing for an “independent judicial panel to review the kill lists.”

But specialized courts are unlikely to provide effective constraints on the President’s power, and there is a real concern that creating a legal system explicitly designed to authorize targeted killings raises troubling questions for a democratic society.

The United States has some experience with specialized national security courts. King suggested modelling the targeted killing courts on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) system, designed to approve warrants for wiretapping foreigners suspected of espionage. But FISA courts don’t appear to present much of a challenge to a power-hungry executive. In 2011, FISA courts approved every request for wiretapping permission — all 1,506 of them. Lest you think this was a fluke, only two out of 1,329 were denied in 2009. Since FISA courts operate in secret, there’s virtually no public accountability.

Targeted killing courts would likely be as permissive as FISA courts. National security law expert Robert Chesney “wouldn’t bet” on such courts “detect[ing] and reject[ing] weak evidentiary arguments for targeting particular persons” because “[j]udges famously tend to defer to the executive branch when it comes to factual judgments on matters of military or national-security significance…[e]specially when the stakes are as high as they will be represented to be in such cases.” There’s not much reason, then, to believe new courts for targeted killing would a bit more adversarial than their FISA equivalents.

This permissiveness could potentially expand the targeted killing power well beyond Congress’ original intent — a point made clear by comparison to the Bush torture regime. David Luban, a lawyer and philosopher at Georgetown University, argued against legally enshrined torture on the ground that the practice would necessarily spread throughout the United States government. Abu Ghraib, for Luban, was a direct consequence of Guantanamo Bay and the Bush legal memos authorizing it: legal torture is never a one-off, containable thing. The more torture is built into the legal system, the more a “torture culture” becomes the norm.

Arguing against Alan Dershowitz, who defended special “torture courts” to authorize it in extreme cases, Luban pointed to the way torture already had shaped the legal system:

Alan Dershowitz has argued that judges, not torturers, should oversee the permission to torture, which in his view must be regulated by warrants. The irony is that Jay S. Bybee, who signed the Justice Department’s highly permissive torture memo, is now a federal judge. Politicians pick judges, and if the politicians accept torture, the judges will as well. Once we create a torture culture, only the naive would suppose that judges will provide a safeguard. Judges do not fight their culture—they reflect it.

The applicability to any new targeted killing courts idea is obvious. Once the targeted killing of Americans becomes an accepted, institutionalized part of the legal system, it could be seen as increasingly legitimate — and hence increasingly more likely to be used in a wider number of cases than we’d want. While there’s no guarantee this would happen, it’s certainly a risk, and one that needs to be considered as the Senate debate on this topic moves forward.

()

Health

The Meat Industry Consumes Four Times The Amount Of Antibiotics As Sick Americans Do

By Tara Culp-Ressler on Feb 8, 2013 at 4:50 pm

The meat industry uses a considerable amount of antibiotics to fight bacteria on its livestock farms — so much so that it actually far outpaces the amount of antibiotics used to treat sick people in the country. According to FDA data compiled by Pew Charitable Trusts, the livestock industry is consuming almost four-fifths of the total amount of antibiotics used in the U.S.:

And, as Mother Jones points out, that points to a dangerous trend in the meat industry. As livestock in close quarters breed bacteria, and the industry uses more and more antibiotics to contain those pathogens, common bacteria are developing a resistance to drugs. For example, more than 75 percent of the salmonella found on ground turkey in 2011 was resistant to at least one antibiotic used to treat it — and over half were resistant to three or more different antibiotics. Unless the meat industry changes its practices, the FDA will have a difficult time continuing to ensure that meat products are safe to consume.

And even though Americans are consuming considerably fewer antibiotics than the meat industry, antibiotic resistance isn’t just an issue among lifestock farms. Diseases that affect humans — such as whooping cough, tuberculosis, and gonorrhea — are also growing increasingly resistant to the drugs used to treat them. Since testing and marketing new antibiotics isn’t as profitable for the pharmaceutical industry as selling the drugs that are already on the market, production has lagged behind over the past few decades, and global health officials warn that an impending “antibiotic apocalypse” could make even the most common infections incurable.

()

Justice

Obama Nominee Would Be First Openly Gay Federal Court of Appeals Judge

By Ian Millhiser on Feb 8, 2013 at 4:10 pm

Since taking office, President Obama has quadrupled the number of openly gay judges on the federal bench — although this is as much a testament to America’s long legacy of discrimination as it is to Obama’s commitment to diversity. Prior to Obama’s presidency, there was one openly gay judge with a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. Today, there are four.

All four of these out judges, however, are district judges — the lowest ranking federal judges. To date, no openly gay lawyer has served as a federal appellate judge or as a Supreme Court justice. In his first term, President Obama nominated openly gay attorney Edward DuMont to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but DuMont eventually withdrew his nomination after 18 months of “one or more members of the [Senate Judiciary] Committee minority” obstructing his confirmation.

Yesterday, the President announced he would take another shot at placing an openly gay judge on this same court, nominating Department of Justice attorney Todd Hughes to fill a seat on the Federal Circuit.

It is certainly good news that the President wants to welcome an openly gay judge into the federal appellate bench, but it should be noted that the Federal Circuit is a specialty court that deals primarily with patents. Obama deserves praise for showing a greater commitment to diversity on the bench than any of his predecessors, but there are also many talented gay attorneys (or even some Obama-appointed district judges) who would make excellent court of appeals judges on courts of general jurisdiction.

In any event, the paucity of gay judges in this country gives the lie to a claim conservative superlawyer Paul Clement made to the Supreme Court in his brief defending the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. Clement wrote that gay people should not have equal rights because they are too powerful.

()

Alyssa

From Russia, No Love For Gay Athletes

By Travis Waldron on Feb 8, 2013 at 4:04 pm

The major controversy over the 2014 Winter Olympics, which will be held in Sochi, Russia, has so far been about whether there would be enough snow to hold sports that depend on it. But there’s another controversy brewing that involves the sexuality of athletes, as Russia’s government is considering legislation that would outlaw “homosexual propaganda,” meaning public events that promote LGBT rights and public displays of same-sex affection will be illegal.

The legislation has sparked concern among out athletes like New Zealand speedskater Blake Skjellerup, who told USA Today that he was concerned about the legislation. “I don’t want to have to tone myself down about who I am,” Skjellerup said. “That wasn’t very fun and there’s no way I’m going back in the closet. I just want to be myself and I hate to think that being myself would get me in trouble.”

Even if the legislation doesn’t pass (it is expected to), Russia has already taken steps to fight homosexuality in its society and at its Olympics. Last year, a Russian judge banned the national Olympic committee from setting up a Pride House, a feature of the past several Olympics that hosts LGBT athletes. A Pride House, the judge wrote, would “undermine the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation” because it “contradict[s] the basics of public morality and the policy of the state in the area of family motherhood and childhood protection.” Meanwhile, an IOC spokesperson took a bold stand by telling USA Today that it was “too early for the IOC to comment on Russia’s proposed anti-gay legislation because it has not been voted on.”

There were 23 open athletes at the 2012 London Olympics, a sharp rise from the 10 that participated in Beijing in 2008. While they faced an atmosphere of tolerance in Britain, which approved marriage equality this week, their Winter counterparts won’t be greeted similarly.

The fault for that lies with the International Olympic Committee, which has shown little tolerance for racism (even though Russia is no saint in that department either) and sexism but has not fought for protections for gay athletes in the same manner. “We aren’t responsible for the running of or setting up of Houses,” an IOC representative said when the Pride House ruling was made. “So in this case it isn’t a decision of either us, or the organizing committee in Sochi. From our side, the IOC is an open organization and athletes of all orientations will be welcome at the Games.”
Read more

()

LGBT

Arkansas Restaurant Cancels LGBT Center’s Fundraiser, Just Like It Would For The KKK

By Zack Ford on Feb 8, 2013 at 3:35 pm

The River Valley Equality Center is a support group for LGBT people and their allies in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Recently, the organization scheduled a fundraiser at the Sisters Gourmet Bistro, but now the restaurant has canceled the event because owner Richard Hodo opposes the group’s support of LGBT equality, just like he opposes the KKK’s white supremacy:

HODO: I called them and told them that I — we’re not going to have that at Sisters, we had no plans for that and there were no reservations to hold any kind of fundraiser or anything like that. I told them that I do not support their cause, that if they want to do that that’s their business. I do not care, but I don’t support their lifestyle and their cause.

What I told the lady on the on the phone, look I said if the KKK came here and wanted to hold a fundraiser rally and all that, I wouldn’t allow that either. This is a private club and I have the right to refuse service to anyone.

It’s unclear how Hodo was able to cancel the event if there was supposedly no reservation to cancel. To raise awareness about his discrimination and offensive comparison to the KKK, the group will hold a demonstration on the street corner by his restaurant later this month. The River Valley Equality Center formed just last year and is trying to raise enough money to obtain non-profit status. (TP: Queerty.)

()

Economy

Another Report Confirms That Austerity Is Backfiring In The United Kingdom

By Pat Garofalo on Feb 8, 2013 at 3:20 pm

Former President Bill Clinton today warned House Democrats about embracing austerity as a solution to the U.S.’s economic woes. “Everybody that’s tried austerity in a time of no growth has wound up cutting revenues even more than they cut spending because you just get into the downward spiral and drag the country back into recession,” he said.

For evidence, House Democrats can gaze across the Atlantic at the United Kingdom, where austerity has put the country on the brink of a triple-dip recession, while doing next to nothing to reduce its deficit. According to the latest budget projections from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a London-based independent think tank, the UK will be borrowing £65 billion more next year thanks to austerity’s dampening effect on growth:

A significant part of the downgrade in official forecasts has come in the last two years. In response, further spending cuts have been pencilled in for after 2014–15 — the end of the current spending review period — to offset fully the increase in forecast structural borrowing: but not until 2017–18. A worse economic outlook since November 2010 has pushed up borrowing forecasts for 2014–15 by £65 billion. Mr Osborne has chosen to offset only £1 billion of this. In this sense, he is running looser fiscal policy over this parliament than he intended back in 2010. [...]

Our baseline public finance forecast shows a more than 50:50 chance that (on a like-for-like basis) borrowing this year will be higher than it was in 2011–12.

As the New Yorker’s John Cassidy put it, “In short, the U.K. experience shows how austerity policies, when applied without regard to the state of the economy, often lead to more government borrowing and debt creation, not less. In the past few years, we’ve seen pretty much the same thing happen in other European countries: Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and now Italy and Spain.”

The U.S., instead, opted for stimulus in 2009, and has returned to slow growth. But unless Congress prevents it, there is a healthy dose of austerity for the U.S. right around the corner.

()

Health

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Strengthen America’s Mental Health System

By Sy Mukherjee on Feb 8, 2013 at 3:00 pm

As part of a wide-ranging effort to address gun violence in the wake of December’s mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, a bipartisan group of senators has introduced the Excellence In Mental Health Act, legislation that aims to strengthen America’s mental health safety net by providing behavioral health care facilities more access to federal funding and consolidating disparate elements of the U.S. mental health safety net.

When introducing the legislation, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) explained, “[W]e must work together to spend federal dollars more wisely when treating people who are mentally ill. This bill will help address our fragmented mental health system and ensure that more patients have access to the care they need by offering current Community Mental Health Centers a chance to expand their services and obtain the Federally Qualified Community Behavioral Health Center designation.” Such a move would provide qualifying behavioral health centers parity with physical health centers by giving them access to prospective — rather than retrospective — Medicaid reimbursements. Modern Healthcare reports that the legislation would also require the federal health centers to offer more expansive services to mentally ill Americans and their families:

The new criteria established by the bill… would require such things as 24-hour crisis care, the increased integration of mental and substance abuse care with other kinds of medical care, as well as expanded support for families of mental health patients.

Mark Covall, president and CEO of the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, said increased standardization and integration are both worthwhile goals (though the association doesn’t take an official stand on the bill). Whether it is adding mental health services to federally qualified health centers or adding medical care to mental health centers, integration is important because that is the direction the industry is moving toward, Covall said.

In its current iteration, the Excellence In Mental Health Act represents a solid step in the right direction when it comes to bridging the illogical gap between the ways that physical and behavioral health issues are treated in America. But while the increased funding provisions are good news, the bill still does not go quite as far as the Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity And Addiction Equity Act, which would require most private insurers to treat mental health coverage the same way they treat any other coverage.

It is also encouraging that the bill includes mental health resources for veterans and substance abusers. Military suicides reached a record high in January, and substance abusers — as a group — are among the most likely to suffer from a co-occurring mental illness. Alongside Sen. Al Franken’s (R-MN) recently-introduced Mental Health In Schools Act — which encourages early intervention and community resources for mentally ill American children — the new legislation suggests that the Senate is serious about plugging the gaping holes in America’s mental health safety net.

()